KrAzY wrote:until it is observed it both does and does not produce a sound

So... what you're saying is... existence is based on observation? I'm calling bull.

What is sound? MW says sound is a mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing. For those of us who didn't major in overly-complicated English terms, sound is more simply defined as waves of vibrations. These waves travel outward from their source and, when picked up by humans, vibrate the various structures inside the ear. The brain interprets these vibrations as what we hear.

Audible actions are not part of some new dimension. The vibration is a physical effect that can be observed not only through hearing, but also by sight; this is especially easy with modern stereo systems. Whether it is observed or not, it occurs just the same as a ball rolling across my kitchen floor or an avalanche somewhere in Canada.

It makes a sound and I'd LOVE to have a serious discussion with whoever is telling everyone otherwise.

Avenged wrote:Sound only exists because of ones ability to perseve it so without anyone there to perseve it it makes no sound.

As Angata said above, sound is not a perception, hearing something is a perception. Sound is just vibration in the air, or what ever you are surrounded by (Like if you are underwater, then sound is vibration in the water.) You can't physically touch sound, as it isn't an object, but it still exists.This was asked in my Psychology class a few weeks ago (Even though it don't have much to do with psychology)I was surprised how I was the only one who realized this, but I think there is more to the question than strictly physics.

PiEdude wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:If a tree falls on a woman, then what was a tree doing in the kitchen?

The fact that mere observation can affect the outcome of something in quantum physics gives substance to the theoretical possibility that it could also be applied to classical physics. I'm not saying the tree doesn't make a sound, but it might not, because if we are not their to observe it, we cannot know for certain.

The fact that mere observation can affect the outcome of something in quantum physics gives substance to the theoretical possibility that it could also be applied to classical physics. I'm not saying the tree doesn't make a sound, but it might not, because if we are not their to observe it, we cannot know for certain.

Something which can be proven by mathematics need not be observed empirically.

Anyway, the question is all about semantics, not science. Its answer depends entirely on one's definition of "sound." If you define the term as "The sensation experienced upon perceiving vibrations in the air," then the tree does not make a sound, as "sound" would be defined as the "sensation" associated with pressure waves, as opposed to the waves themselves.

If, however, you define sound as, quite simply, "vibrations in the air which organs of hearing would theoretically be capable of perceiving," then the tree does, in fact, make a sound.

I always thought the purpose of the question was philisophical in nature, forcing us to more deeply question whether or not what we perceive is necessarily the same as what is True. The fact that, in the multiverse, there is an example in which observation of something affects the outcome calls into question the very nature of what we consider to be fact.

And I'd note that, mathematically, we can prove every possibility of the double slit as being the correct one, so math doesn't necessarily have final say.